Hampton budget panel reconsiders warrant articles

HAMPTON — After a public hearing on the town warrant Tuesday, the Budget Committee changed its stance on a few articles.

Comment

By Nick B. Reid

seacoastonline.com

By Nick B. Reid

Posted Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Updated Jan 23, 2014 at 1:16 PM

By Nick B. Reid

Posted Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Updated Jan 23, 2014 at 1:16 PM

» Social News

HAMPTON — After a public hearing on the town warrant Tuesday, the Budget Committee changed its stance on a few articles.

Committee member Richard Reniere said that when the committee first looked at Article 41, it was extremely late in the evening and there was no one to speak on its behalf, so the committee “breezed through” it, voting 7-5 not to recommend its passage. The article asks voters to spend $4,950 to repair cemetery markers and monuments in a historic cemetery in town, and it was shrugged off as work that could be done by Boy Scouts.

State Rep. Fred Rice came Tuesday to ask the committee to change its stance, noting that while Boy Scouts have put much effort into maintaining and cataloging the Ring Swamp Cemetery, this particular article seeks to have a professional tend to work that the Boy Scouts can't do. The work would be done at a “cheap, cheap price,” Rice said, by a man who “has a love affair with gravestones.”

“Some of these things are old and iconic, and before they crumble to the ground, we need to preserve them,” Rice advised.

After reconsidering the article, 11 of 13 Budget Committee members decided to support it.

The thinking was much the same when it came to Article 47, which asks voters to use up to $45,000 out of the Cemetery Burial Trust Fund to buy a new four-wheel drive truck with a plow to be used at Hampton cemeteries. This time, Cemetery Trustee Matthew Shaw was there to explain that their current truck is 18 years old and the article doesn't impact taxes at all.

“If there is a need, we should be voting to expend the money out of that fund. That's what it's there for,” said Budget Committee member Mark McFarlin before the committee voted unanimously to change its position.

Article 48, though it was for a relatively low cost of $3,000, caused a stir with some Budget Committee members who said it was “double budgeting.” The article acts as a fail-safe in case the town's proposed operating budget doesn't pass. The full sum to construct 20 new greenhead fly traps is included in the operating budget, but should it fail, Article 48 asks voters to spend $3,000 for that purpose anyway.

Budget Committee member Sandra Nickerson condemned the idea of “double budgeting,” saying, “You either put it in the budget or you put it in the warrant article, you don't do both.”

Budget Committee Chairwoman Eileen Latimer said the concept wasn't “double budgeting,” but rather “an insurance policy.” The majority of the board agreed with her in a tight 6-5-2 vote.

Maurice Friedman, who authored a petition warrant article asking voters to spend $200,000 on a new senior center, wasn't able to persuade the Budget Committee to reconsider its unanimous recommendation against his proposal, despite a lengthy presentation. The Board of Selectmen also unanimously recommended against his article, which Friedman said would help a group he feels is being ignored by the town.